GM’s acquisition of Cruise seems to be paying big dividends.

In November, Waymo announced it would begin testing fully driverless vehicles with no one in the driver's seat. Then, last week, GM petitioned the federal government for approval to mass-produce a car with no steering wheel or pedals—with plans to release it in 2019. In short, driverless cars are on the cusp of shifting from laboratory research projects to real, shipping products.

A new report from the consulting firm Navigant ranks the major players in this emerging driverless car industry. Navigant analysts see GM and Waymo as the clear industry leaders, while Ford, Daimler (teamed up with auto supplier Bosch), and Volkswagen Group are also strong contenders in Navigant's view.

Dominating the driverless car business will require both advanced autonomous vehicle technology as well as the ability to mass-produce cars with the necessary sensors and computing hardware. In this respect, Silicon Valley tech companies and the OEMs face opposite challenges. Waymo has long been the leader in driverless software, but it needs to find a partner to help it manufacture the cars that will run that software. Conversely, car companies know how to build cars but don't necessarily have the expertise to create the kind of sophisticated software required for fully self-driving vehicles.

GM's strategy to solve this problem was to acquire a Silicon Valley company called Cruise two years ago. Meanwhile, Waymo has signed a small deal with Fiat Chrysler for 600 vehicles but is still looking for a permanent partner that will help scale up its planned driverless taxi service.

Tesla is the only Silicon Valley company with significant experience manufacturing cars, so, in theory, it should be perfectly positioned to take advantage of the driverless trend. But that isn't how things have been playing out. Navigant actually ranks Tesla dead last, alongside Apple, out of 19 companies.

Tesla has struggled since ditching Mobileye

Tesla claimed an early lead in the autonomous vehicle race when it introduced a driver-assistance feature called Autopilot in 2015. The original version of Autopilot used hardware from an Israeli company called Mobileye, but the two companies split after a deadly Autopilot-related crash in 2016. Since then, Tesla has been trying to build its own version of Autopilot, known as version two, from the ground up. Tesla CEO Elon Musk said last year that he expects full self-driving capabilities to arrive in about two years.

If Musk could deliver on that timeline, it would make Tesla one of the leading companies in the driverless car race. But Tesla's Autopilot development efforts haven't gone smoothly.

"The Autopilot system on current products has stagnated and, in many respects, regressed since it was first launched in late 2015," Navigant writes. "More than one year after launching V2, Autopilot still lacks some of the functionality of the original, and there are many anecdotal reports from owners of unpredictable behavior."

"In a May 2017 TED talk, Musk claimed the systems being built today would be Level 5 capable"—that is, suitable for full self-driving with just a software update—"by 2019," Navigant notes. "However, this is unlikely to ever be achievable."

The reason, Navigant notes, is that Tesla's current systems lack several key components required for fully self-driving capabilities. "Current Tesla hardware lacks the ability to keep sensors clean and unobscured in poor weather as well as most of the redundant systems needed for fully automated driving," Navigant writes.

Waymo and GM have both touted the extensive redundancy in their own driverless car prototypes. Both companies' vehicles have at least two computers on board so that the second computer can take over control if the first one fails. They also have redundant power supplies and redundant controls for steering and brakes, ensuring that the vehicle will be able to come to a safe, controlled stop in the event that any single component fails.

Today's Tesla vehicles also lack lidar sensors, which most other companies in the industry consider essential for full autonomy. And "even Nvidia has expressed doubt that the computing hardware it sells to Tesla is capable of supporting full automation reliably," Navigant argues.

So there's reason to question Tesla's promise that today's Tesla vehicles can be upgraded to full self-driving capability—in 2019 or ever.

Elon Musk has a long history of eventually reaching his goals, even if it happens months or years after his original target date. So Tesla will probably master fully driverless technology eventually. But the problem is that the rest of the industry is moving faster than most people expected just a couple of years ago. By the time Tesla ultimately achieves full self-driving capabilities, it may find that it's entering a crowded market.

GM’s Cruise acquisition is paying off big time

Enlarge/ GM plans to release this modified Chevy Bolt with no steering wheel in 2019 for use in the Cruise driverless taxi service.

Navigant considers GM to be the driverless car leader, and it's not hard to see why. The automotive giant purchased a little-known driverless car startup called Cruise two years ago, and Cruise has been thriving ever since.

This kind of acquisition creates a danger that the new corporate parent's bureaucracy will smother the innovative culture that made the startup successful in the first place. But GM has managed to give Cruise CEO Kyle Vogt enough autonomy—and enough clout within GM more broadly—to continue rapidly improving its driverless car technology.

As a result, Cruise has emerged as one of Waymo's top rivals in developing fully driverless vehicle technology. While Waymo has shifted much of its testing efforts to Phoenix (where state regulatory oversight is lax), Cruise has concentrated on testing in San Francisco. Vogt has argued that San Francisco is a better testing environment because cars encounter unusual and difficult situations—like construction zones, pedestrians, and emergency vehicles—much more frequently, allowing Cruise to improve its software more quickly.

Cruise's big advantage, though, is that being owned by GM gives it access to vehicle design and manufacturing infrastructure that no technology startup could develop independently. Cruise engineers have been working closely with GM engineers on a modified Chevy Bolt that has been re-designed for driverless capabilities. Last week, GM petitioned the federal government for approval to begin manufacturing modified Bolts with no steering wheels or pedals as soon as next year.

Once Cruise is confident its software is safe and reliable, GM can begin producing these vehicles in volume. That means that, even if Cruise isn't the first to market—it looks like Waymo is likely to claim that honor—Cruise may be able to scale up more quickly, allowing Cruise to eventually capture a large share of the market.

Not surprising Tesla is lagging now that the major players are earnestly competing. You can't constantly push your technical experts with low wages and excessive hours. They'll just quit or get poached by a competitor.

In a May 2017 TED talk, Musk claimed the systems being built today would be Level 5 capable... by 2019

I somehow wasn't aware of this claim. I'd be pretty grouchy if I'd bought a Tesla with the expectation it would start driving for me three years into its lifetime, only to find that it lacked fundamentally necessary hardware.

Of course one would be a fool to take a TED talk as some sort of contractual obligation, and any sort of legal action would be absurd and groundless, but it sure wouldn't be great for brand loyalty.

I have a GMC SUV that was purchased less than a year ago (the 2018 model wasn't available at the time, so I grabbed a 2017). It has adaptive cruise control and lane keeping assistance, but it doesn't react to lane lines until you get right up against them, so to an outside observer you might seem to be a mildly drunk driver bouncing back and forth between the sides of the lane. Like you are bowling with bumpers. And it doesn't exactly instill confidence that you can let go of the wheel.

However, my wife got a 2018 Accura in the past 3 months, and that thing drives right down the center of the lane. No bouncing, just smooth like butter. It's dangerous how much it invites you to let go. But it does warn you to grab the wheel after about a minute or so.

That said, when I first tried out lane-keeping in a 2016 rental car, I didn't care about any of its flaws and couldn't stop smiling when I experienced it for the first time.

Who pays for insurance on a car that has no direct driver input devices?

I'm not sure if this is a facetious question but, assuming you're asking for real, this is one of the main reasons why the first deployments of level 4 and level 5 autonomous vehicles will be as manufacturer-owned fleets rather than cars you or I would buy in a showroom. The OEMs will self-insure and be responsible for liability.

That state of affairs will probably exist for about five years, by which time there should be sufficient data for actuaries to come up with a plan for autonomous cars sold to the general public.

Who pays for insurance on a car that has no direct driver input devices?

The manufacturer

More likely the subscriber agreement will have it baked in. Driverless cars en masse represent a very fundamental shift in how mobility looks. Why own a car when one can just show up and ferry you about like an Uber sans irksome driver and tipping?

Can't say the idea of a robot autonomously deciding where I go sits easily with me, I'll probably be a holdout for my self-operated vehicle, but a lot of folks won't be nearly so opposed to giving up car ownership.

I have a GMC SUV that was purchased less than a year ago (the 2018 model wasn't available at the time, so I grabbed a 2017). It has adaptive cruise control and lane keeping assistance, but it doesn't react to lane lines until you get right up against them, so it feels like you are a drunk driver bouncing back and forth between the sides of the lane. Like you are bowling with bumpers. And it doesn't exactly instill confidence that you can let go of the wheel.

However, my wife got a 2018 Accura in the past 3 months, and that thing drives right down the center of the lane. No bouncing, just smooth like butter. It's dangerous how much it invites you to let go. But it does warn you to grab the wheel after about a minute or so.

There is a real disparity in lane keeping systems right now. The newest ones are really very good, but some aren't. I was not at all impressed with the lane keeping assist on the Lexus LC500 or LS500, nor the new Camry. On the other hand, it's very good in new Volvos and Audis, as well as the Nissan Leaf (and presumably the Nissan Rogue, which uses the same system).

Who pays for insurance on a car that has no direct driver input devices?

I'm not sure if this is a facetious question but, assuming you're asking for real, this is one of the main reasons why the first deployments of level 4 and level 5 autonomous vehicles will be as manufacturer-owned fleets rather than cars you or I would buy in a showroom. The OEMs will self-insure and be responsible for liability.

That state of affairs will probably exist for about five years, by which time there should be sufficient data for actuaries to come up with a plan for autonomous cars sold to the general public.

Not a facetious question. Makes sense to do self-insured fleets. I'm imagining a vehicle that I direct like a taxi, just input destination and sit back. How responsible can I possibly be if there is an accident, I literally had no way of avoiding the accident.

I have a GMC SUV that was purchased less than a year ago (the 2018 model wasn't available at the time, so I grabbed a 2017). It has adaptive cruise control and lane keeping assistance, but it doesn't react to lane lines until you get right up against them, so it feels like you are a drunk driver bouncing back and forth between the sides of the lane. Like you are bowling with bumpers. And it doesn't exactly instill confidence that you can let go of the wheel.

However, my wife got a 2018 Accura in the past 3 months, and that thing drives right down the center of the lane. No bouncing, just smooth like butter. It's dangerous how much it invites you to let go. But it does warn you to grab the wheel after about a minute or so.

Automated Driving R&D Progress != Released automated Driving features

As Tesla has shown, the large car manufacturers are very, very conservative when it comes to releasing autonomous driving features in their cars.

Tesla on the other hand is the polar opposite, they use their customers as alpha testers.

I'm not saying that either is wrong or right. Just different in how they approach the release of autonomous driving features.

So just because GM has only released sort of crappy autonomous systems in trucks doesn't mean they're not in the lead in R&D. (Their Super Cruise system is quite impressive.)

While GM and Waymo are leading in fully self driving cars, many people who dont understand these systems dont trust the car completely taking over driving

On the other hand, people like a button that parallel parks, or a system to auto stop when you back up. Im not sure that Tesla is losing by not leading in this specific area.

That seems like short term thinking to me. At some point, people will accept fully autonomous vehicles. When that day comes, being the vehicle with buttons and assist features only puts you behind, not ahead. And pretending that day will never come seems pretty antithetical to Tesla and Musk as a whole.

I think a lot of what they concluded came from what companies said about themselves. So, marketing. When GM said they planned to release autonomous vehicles in 2019, these guys thought GM suddenly jumped into the lead. In reality, the car could get 'delayed' into 2022, and Ford and BMW and everyone else beats them, and the analysts still think GM is the best positioned because of their initial 'aggresive timeline'. And Apple is in last place? So, basically, Apple hasn't told them anything, yet.

Who pays for insurance on a car that has no direct driver input devices?

The manufacturer

I'll pay for my own insurance, if only so that I'm covered after getting my car repaired at a non-manufacturer auto shop.

There's already been a case of Tesla refusing to enable the software on a car that had been involved in a crash, but later "repaired" under the owner's direction. The future of the auto repair industry is going to be a lot different than it has been.

I think a lot of what they concluded came from what companies said about themselves. So, marketing. When GM said they planned to release autonomous vehicles in 2019, these guys thought GM suddenly jumped into the lead. In reality, the car could get 'delayed' into 2022, and Ford and BMW and everyone else beats them, and the analysts still think GM is the best positioned because of their initial 'aggresive timeline'. And Apple is in last place? So, basically, Apple hasn't told them anything, yet.

I don't know what data Navigant does or doesn't have, but the rankings seem consistent with conversations I've had with various people in the industry.

It's obviously possible that Apple is developing amazing technology behind closed doors, but the thing about driverless cars is that at some point you have to test them on public roads to see if they actually work the way you want them to. So we can see who is making serious progress based on who has cars on the road and how well they seem to be doing.

By that metric, Waymo and Uber are two of the leading companies in the Phoenix area, while Cruise is doing a lot of testing in San Francisco. As far as I know, Apple hasn't done significant testing anywhere. Uber has had some high-profile issues with its cars (like blowing through a red light in December 2016) whereas I haven't heard of similar incidents with Cruise. We should be getting the annual disengagement report from California in a couple of weeks, which should give us some valuable hard data on how different companies are doing.

Obviously, all this doesn't mean GM is definitely going to hit their 2019 target, but I think it's reasonable to consider them to be one of the frontrunners.

Who pays for insurance on a car that has no direct driver input devices?

Insurance covers more than liability of the driver but I would imagine liability (paying for damages caused to other people and property as a result of your car) will be covered by the manufacturer.

They are the only ones who have control of the car. Now cars which aren't completely autonomous and operate in multiple modes including meatbag control well that gets a little more complex.

Regardless you are still going to want to have insurance in cast someone steals your car, vandazlizes your car, your car is damaged by act of nature, someone hits your car and has no insurance (or hits and runs), etc.

Still all this is kinda academic as this point the first fully autonomous vehicle (i.e. the GM vehicle w/ no steering wheel) are intended for taxi fleets. You the rider won't insure it because you won't own it.

Wonder how a "car" with no controls will resonate psychologically with those who learned to drive before driver aids were common?

I'm guessing the feeling might be similar to teaching someone how to drive and inadvertently hitting the absent brake pedal every time they perform a maneuver not to your standards.

Kids learning to drive now in cars with lane keeping & auto-braking will likely find the transition much smoother.

Climb in the back, it'll feel like a taxi. I know I will.

Also, people above 75/80 are usually aware they're usually public dangers when driving, though not all will accordingly stop driving. So I'd add seniors to the list of prospective early adopters.

Also most people's first experience will probably BE a taxi. At some point it is going to be rent a human taxi for $25 or rent a robo taxi for $15. Sure the luddites might stick with the human (and wait longer and pay more) but some will say I am in a hurry or cheap let me try this damn Waymo robo taxi bullshit and wow it really isn't that bad.

Next they start visualizing how their dreadful commute wouldn't be so bad if they had an autonomous vehicle or how they wouldn't have to worry about grandma killing someone if she had an autonomous vehicle.

While GM and Waymo are leading in fully self driving cars, many people who dont understand these systems dont trust the car completely taking over driving

On the other hand, people like a button that parallel parks, or a system to auto stop when you back up. Im not sure that Tesla is losing by not leading in this specific area.

I'm all in favor of assisted driving tech, even to the point of lane-keeping and mandatory "hands off" driving zones in some regions (like freeways). It absolutely makes perfect sense from a safety point of view.

What I don't get about this rush to autonomous driving is why it's not more of a rush for putting more of the assisted driving tech in less expensive vehicles. Chevy's idea there to remove the driver steering gear entirely is obviously to maximize profits. It will NOT play well for a mass market consumer item, though. It COULD see life in closed zones where mixed driving isn't likely. (Those who down-vote that reality are ignoring reality - MOST people would not own an AV. Hell, even less than 3% of people would even BUY an EV, let alone an AV, mostly because of costs or the lack of recharging infrastructure.)

I'd much rather see far more of a push toward making the safety systems automatic and bringing those costs down. Auto-breaking, taking over steering, brakes and speed in a skid or low-traction event, lane-keeping and such are all excellent ways to help reduce traffic accidents. Since all of that "autonomy" can be put into a car that the driver can drive anywhere, taking away the ability to drive anywhere would be a major down-side to the notion.

And most Americans (according to the AAA) are not interested in AV's because they don't trust them.

I know the systems involved in AV's fairly well. I also know that regulatory oversight is essentially nonexistent (the government's facilitation of putting AV's on the roads without clear standards for testing OR QC is appalling). Further, I have a long and storied history involving tech in its various incarnations and the one thing I've learned about tech is that IT WILL BREAK. It's not a question. It will happen. It happens TODAY on the best of vehicles. EVERY car maker has a line of shame (even Tesla, though their PR department is better at covering up that kind of thing).

But in those cases, a human had a chance at mitigating the effects of those breakages. Remove the human, and it's all on the car, and that bodes badly for the automotive industry's foray into AV's.

We don't even have the liability issue settled, let alone "road worthy".

I know I get hate for this, but I expect AV's are going to end up being a niche item to one degree or another. The future is human-assisted - about a level three to three and a half. It can do a Google Maps thing to get you there on its own, if you want, or you can drive there covered by the automatics that can take over in the event the driver gets "distracted", but the driver will still be the one parking the car where it has to go that an AV would simply sit and stare at because no one taught it how to park that way.

THOSE I see as our future. The ones sans steering equipment? Niche at best, and likely a bad idea from the start outside of some pretty specific uses. After all, people get really nervous when road vehicles start moving on their own with them inside it and no one driving.

Personally, the interior of that Chevy puts me into a panic. One too many BSOD's in my life to ever trust a machine with my life, even if the "stratistics" say I should. People are not rational. They are rationalizing. AV adoption's success will hinge on that, and at the moment, the disparity between the auto makers enthusiasm for them and the decidedly cold reception from most of the market tells me the auto makers are heavily into rationalizations as well.

Probably blinded by the profit motive. Because of the corners being cut now in getting AV's on the road, I don't see good things in the future for that particular mode of transportation. When people are that blinded by "enthusiasm", there's ALWAYS something really important that was overlooked. AV's may not have humans driving them, but human nature very much comes into play in their design, construction and deployment.

Who pays for insurance on a car that has no direct driver input devices?

The manufacturer

I'll pay for my own insurance, if only so that I'm covered after getting my car repaired at a non-manufacturer auto shop.

You won't be able to buy a driverless car for quite a while; the first few years of deployment will be manufacturer-operated ride-hailing fleets.

OK?

Then obviously the manufacturer (and owner) will insure the vehicle, and my response applies to after "the first few years".

Like I said further upthread insurance for cars is really a lot of different insurances. The insurance in this case would be liability which covers the liability of the driver if he/she injures or damages a third party. For self driving vehicles liability insurance is likely to be part of the product. It will be built into the price of the vehicle and you won't be able to seperate it. You won't need liability insurance because the manufacturer not you will be the one liable for any damages.

So if your self driving car drives into a guardrail the manufacturer covers the cost to repair or replace it. If you are injured as a passenger in a self driving car the manufacturer covers your medical costs and injuries. If a self driving car kills a third party or destroys their property the manufacturer covers the court awarded damages for liability.

Now totally separate from liability you are likely to still want/need insurance. Insurance to cover vandalism, acts of nature, someone stealing your fancy and expensive self driving car, covering damage if someone breaks into the vehicle, covering damage when someone else hits you and doesn't have insurance, hit and run insurance, etc.

Who pays for insurance on a car that has no direct driver input devices?

The manufacturer

I'll pay for my own insurance, if only so that I'm covered after getting my car repaired at a non-manufacturer auto shop.

There's already been a case of Tesla refusing to enable the software on a car that had been involved in a crash, but later "repaired" under the owner's direction. The future of the auto repair industry is going to be a lot different than it has been.

I wonder how long that'll last before entrenched interests, who have already done this before and won, push back...

In a May 2017 TED talk, Musk claimed the systems being built today would be Level 5 capable... by 2019

I somehow wasn't aware of this claim. I'd be pretty grouchy if I'd bought a Tesla with the expectation it would start driving for me three years into its lifetime, only to find that it lacked fundamentally necessary hardware.

Of course one would be a fool to take a TED talk as some sort of contractual obligation, and any sort of legal action would be absurd and groundless, but it sure wouldn't be great for brand loyalty.

The TED talk may not be a contractual obligation, but the fact that they're still selling their cars with an option for "Full Self-Driving" probably is. There's some legalese attached to that option, but it's still a scummy thing to keep selling when it's looking more and more like it's something they can't deliver on.

In self driving tech imagine that once people see what they can actually do during the time of drive, they will refuse to drive themselves and instead would use that time productively. Second,I don't want a regular sedan for self-driving car. They are inconvenient. I want a van with a comfortable massage seat, and perhaps a table where I can put my laptop on and work instead. Then I would imagine a self-driving coach bus. How cool would that be to take all your friends and party while the bus goes where needed. And a little stretch of that idea, I imagine people would have a good use for self-driving motor home. Imagine the case where you can live while constantly travelling. Just pick a destination and the computer tells ETA 2 weeks. And off you go. You live your regular life while being on the move without worrying about transportation. Imagine the amount of places you could visit. I totally imagine roads being full of autonomous motor homes.

Who pays for insurance on a car that has no direct driver input devices?

The manufacturer

More likely the subscriber agreement will have it baked in. Driverless cars en masse represent a very fundamental shift in how mobility looks. Why own a car when one can just show up and ferry you about like an Uber sans irksome driver and tipping?

Can't say the idea of a robot autonomously deciding where I go sits easily with me, I'll probably be a holdout for my self-operated vehicle, but a lot of folks won't be nearly so opposed to giving up car ownership.

Because if you don't own the car it will come to your door filled with piss/shit/vomit or worse.

In a May 2017 TED talk, Musk claimed the systems being built today would be Level 5 capable... by 2019

I somehow wasn't aware of this claim. I'd be pretty grouchy if I'd bought a Tesla with the expectation it would start driving for me three years into its lifetime, only to find that it lacked fundamentally necessary hardware.

Musk has been clear that Tesla does not agree Lidar is necessary for full autonomy.

Mostly I want a car that can drive during my commute or long trips (I like the automated RV idea!). I have a hard time dealing with some of the other drivers on the road (like the one in the left hand lane on a five lane interstate doing 50mph and weaving because they are talking on the cell phone). If I could trust (IF!) an automated car enough to put my head down in a book, my life would be less stressful, especially during morning/afternoon work commutes. The long drives aren't so bad, just physically uncomfortable.